BHARATI GURUKULAM SANSKRIT MISSION TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT M MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a declaration that it is a minority institution as per the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977. THE respondents insisted on the appellant obtaining a Civil Court's declaration that it is a minority institution for grant of recognition.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is as follows: THE plaintiff institution is registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per the bye-laws, the President of the institution is to look after its affairs. As per the provisions of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff institution is a minority institution on the basis of language and religion and therefore entitled to all the benefits a minority institution is entitled to. Arya Samaj is a minority religious establishment. THE object of Arya Samaj at Tirunelveli is to train Secondary Grade Teachers and to disseminate the Vedas to the general public. THE institution has not been formed on the basis of caste or community. It does not believe in that. Its object is to remove the illiteracy and ignorance among the people. THE persons trained in the institution are either Arya Samajis or their children. Out of 4 Teachers in the institution, 3 teachers belong to Arya Samaj. In the whole of Tamil Nadu there are about 1000 Arya Samajis. Out of 4 Teachers, one is qualified to be a Sanskrit Teacher. Sanskrit is taught in the school, as also Vedas. THE institution conducts examinations in Sanskrit twice a year and gives certificates. THE certificates are approved by the Government of India. Arya Samaj was started in Tirunelveli District on 25.12.1983 and it was registered on 1.10.1985. THE President of the institution is also the Correspondent. On 1.2.1986 he sent a notice to the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Registration and Payment of Grants) Rules. This was followed by a letter dated 25.8.1986 requesting the second respondent to accord recognition to the plaintiff institution as a minority institution. THE second respondent, after receiving the said communication, sent it back stating that the plaintiff institution has to obtain a declaration from a competent Civil Court. THE details required by the Government were all given by the plaintiff institution. Only to obtain a declaration, the present suit came to be filed.

(3.) AS per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as per the decisions of the Supreme Court, any institution to claim minority status should prove that it was established and administered by the minority and in the instant case, the same has not been established and according to the learned Government Advocate, none of the documents produced on the side of the plaintiff, would show that it was established and is being administered by a minority.